JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Ms. D.D. Barman represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a constable in the 7th Assam Police Battalion (in short ‘the 7th APBN’) and following his unauthorized absence for 39 days in between 15.2.2001—19.6.2001, the D.P. No.16/2001, was drawn up against him. In the charge memo dated 25.6.2001, besides the unauthorized absence for 39 days, the absence of the constable also on 20.6.2001, was specified in the show cause notice issued on 25.6.2001. The constable gave his reply on 13.7.2001 and since the disciplinary authority was dissatisfied with the reply, an inquiry by the 2nd I/C. of the 7th APBN, was ordered into the charges. 3. The delinquent responded to the notice served by the Inquiry Officer and also participated in the preliminary stages of the enquiry. The enquiry report of 28.11.2001 (Annexure-F) reflects that the delinquent pleaded guilty to the charge and stated that he does not wish to face further proceeding in the inquiry. Therefore on the basis of the guilty plea of the delinquent and taking note of the statements of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and other relevant materials, the inquiry officer declared that the charge of willful negligence, dereliction of duty and violation of lawful order, are proved. 4. When the charges were found to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority considered the same and observing that the delinquent is an indisciplined person, his removal from service, was ordered on 7.1.2002 (Annexure-A). 5. The aggrieved constable then filed an Appeal on 19.4.2003 and in that proceeding, the DIG of Police observed that punishment was imposed without serving the 2nd show cause notice and without furnishing the inquiry report. Thus the Appellate Authority, on 16.6.2003 (Annexure-D), ordered that the petitioner’s removal be kept in abeyance and the disciplinary authority was directed to furnish the necessary report and also the 2nd show cause notice, to the delinquent. 6. Following the above direction, the Commandant of the 7th APBN on 8.7.2003 (Annexure-E), issued the 2nd show cause notice, proposing the penalty of removal, along with the inquiry report. 6. Following the above direction, the Commandant of the 7th APBN on 8.7.2003 (Annexure-E), issued the 2nd show cause notice, proposing the penalty of removal, along with the inquiry report. In his response, the delinquent mentioned about the illness of his parents and his son for which he remained absent without authorization and also contended that punishment is being imposed on him, without following the due process. 7. However the response of the delinquent was found unsatisfactory and accordingly the Commandant as the disciplinary authority, re-imposed the penalty of removal dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure-A) (kept in abeyance by the Appellate Authority on 16.6.2003), under his order of 24.7.2003 (Annexure-H). The resultant Appeal filed by the aggrieved constable was rejected on 13.8.2008 (Annexure-J), by the Appellate Authority. 8.1. The legality of the disciplinary action is questioned by the petitioner by projecting that he was denied the assistance of a friend during the departmental inquiry and therefore he contends that the finding of that inquiry cannot be made the basis of any disciplinary action. 8.2. The learned counsel Mr. S. Bora submits that the petitioner was primarily charged with unauthorized absence and for such lapses, the punishment of removal is disproportionate and the same should be modified. 9.1. On the other hand, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that the conclusion was reached by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the admission of the delinquent and also after due consideration of the testimony and other materials and therefore she argues that there is no legal infirmity, with the departmental inquiry. 9.2. The learned Govt. Advocate refers to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, on 27.7.2011, to project that the delinquent was habitually indisciplined and was punished earlier on multiple occasions for his misconduct, negligence of duty, unauthorized firing of weapon, etc. through the respective D.P. No.4/96, D.P. No.8/97 and D.P. No.12/98 and as many as 29 punishments were awarded to the delinquent, during his service career of 16 years. Therefore the counsel argues that retention of such in disciplined constable is not at all warranted, as he sets a bad example for his colleagues, in the Battalion. 10. The charge of unauthorized absence was admitted by the delinquent before the Inquiry Officer and on that basis, he declined to participate further in the inquiry. Therefore the counsel argues that retention of such in disciplined constable is not at all warranted, as he sets a bad example for his colleagues, in the Battalion. 10. The charge of unauthorized absence was admitted by the delinquent before the Inquiry Officer and on that basis, he declined to participate further in the inquiry. In such situation, when charges are admitted, the guilty finding can be recorded on the basis of the admission itself. Nevertheless it is seen from the inquiry report that three prosecution witnesses were examined, in presence of the delinquent/constable and the inquiry officer also facilitated the delinquent to ask any question/clarification, from the prosecution witnesses. It is also seen that the charges in the D.P. No.16/2001 were explained to the delinquent and only then, the delinquent pleaded guilty. After that stage, the delinquent declined to take further part in the departmental inquiry and he never produced any evidence to rebut the charges. 11. The circumstances above suggest that conclusion was reached on the basis of the admission of the delinquent and in that proceeding, all opportunities were provided. Therefore this Court has no hesitation in declaring that inquiry findings were given bona fide on a fair basis. 12. The petitioner has also argued on proportionality of the punishment. On this aspect, the service records of the delinquent constable, as revealed from the counter affidavit suggest that the constable was in disciplined and had suffered multiple punishments, for various misconducts. Therefore it can be reasonably said that his retention in service is not warranted, as there are no mitigating circumstances and it will send a wrong signal for the other personal in the Battalion. 13. In a disciplined force, unauthorized absence without any intimation to the authorities is not a small matter, where a lesser punishment may be warranted. Considering the gravity of charges relating to willful negligence, dereliction of duty and violation of lawful order, in D.P. No.16/2001, the punishment of removal, as decided by the disciplinary authority, cannot be said to be disproportionate or is shocking to the conscience of the Court. Therefore the impugned order of removal is held to be as deserved, by the delinquent. 14. Following the above discussion and conclusion, the petition is found devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.